March 31, 2005

Screw it. Y'all are just begging for a flame-fest, but the posting rules don't allow for one, no matter how much windowpane you've had. Mope about no more, lads and lassies (where's Timmy when you need him?); there are flame-fests galore (deluxe, even) about the 'net. Slide on over and give as good as you get. Then remember why we has da rules. And yah, I know, it was a joke.

And if it's flameproof chuckles you're after, am I the last person on the planet to discover thesedelectables? No? Back to what you were doing, then, oozing pantloads.

Struck by the emptiness of everyday conversations and the idiocy of meaningless formalities, Theater of the Absurd playwright Eugene Ionesco made a name for himself satirizing society via its nonsense. In one of his most famous plays, Rhinoceros, he explores totalitarianism via the metaphor of a disease that turns people into huge ferocious beasts. It's only after the protagonist realizes he's the only non-rhinoceros person left that he decides to take action, so self-involved and full of denial had he been until then.

A scathing report made public this morning concludes that American intelligence agencies were "dead wrong" in almost all of their prewar assessments about the state of unconventional weapons in Iraq, and that on issues of this importance "we simply cannot afford failures of this magnitude."

It adds, "The harm done to American credibility by our all too public intelligence failures in Iraq will take years to undo."

The report concludes that while many other nations believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, "in the end, it was the United States that put its credibility on the line, making this one of the most public - and most damaging - intelligence failures in recent American history."

And, so, who cares?

The Rhinos have taken over. The WMD were only a pretext to the invasion that, if we believe the WH now, was always actually about spreading Democracy. Why beat up our intelligence agencies over something we never truly cared about anyway?

The Times reported yesterday that administration officials were relieved that the new report by a presidential commission had "found no evidence that political pressure from the White House or Pentagon contributed to the mistaken intelligence."

That's hilarious.

As necessity is the mother of invention, political pressure was the father of conveniently botched intelligence.

Dick Cheney and the neocons at the Pentagon started with the conclusion they wanted, then massaged and manipulated the intelligence to back up their wishful thinking.

What the report actually says doesn't totally clear the WH, mind you:

Finally, we closely examined the possibility that intelligence analysts were pressured by policymakers to change their judgments about Iraq’s nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs. The analysts who worked Iraqi weapons issues universally agreed that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. That said, it is hard to deny the conclusion that intelligence analysts worked in an environment that did not encourage skepticism about the conventional wisdom.

I mean, really...there you had Dick Cheney reportedly combing the halls in Langley during the summer of 2002, and none of the analysts there were even remotely unsure what his opinion was, but we're supposed to accept that no political pressure was put upon the CIA to deliver supporting material to the predetermined agenda? It's totally absurd.

Or it would be heartening, if what brought them together was to offer some positive message of peace or hope. Instead, what brought them and other religious leaders together was a message of hate:

This is very ugly and very nasty to have these people come to Jerusalem.---Abdel Aziz Bukhari, a Sufi sheik

They are creating a deep and terrible sorrow that is unbearable. ---Shlomo Amar, Israel's Sephardic chief rabbi

In case you haven't guessed yet, they're talking about gays. That's right, these men of God, who can't see past their own prejudices to come together to stop terrorism or poverty or war, can be united to speak out about a 10-day conference/festival (called WorldPride) to be held in Jerusalem that focuses on tolerance and diversity. Their comments get worse:

We can't permit anybody to come and make the Holy City dirty.---Abdel Aziz Bukhari, a Sufi sheik

This is not the homo land, this is the Holy Land.---Rabbi Yehuda Levin

The leaders came together with via a concerted effort by American Evangelical pastor, Rev. Leo Giovinetti, from San Diego:

California Pastor Leo Giovinetti, representing a coalition of U.S. Christian leaders, appeared at a press briefing together with former Tourism Minister Benny Elon and other Knesset members from various political parties.

"Millions of people around the world pray for the peace of Jerusalem and are heart-broken by misguided attempts to divide, inflame and sow disunity," Pastor Giovinetti said.

As I've been urging, protecting the profits of the record industry is not the appropriate aim of intellectual property policy. Rather, the point of intellectual property law is to ensure that adequate incentives continue to exist for the production of new works.

Pass for a moment whether "the production of new works" is, in fact, the the sole (or even primary) aim of intellectual property law. (It ain't) The "production of new works" is broader that Yglesias seems to suppose. It does not merely mean "the creation of new works." Rather, it also includes the distribution of new works. A record needs a listener; a book needs a reader. Even the most ardent indyrocker needs an audience, or he's just another callow hipster with stacks of vinyl in his basement on a Saturday night. As the old koan goes, if no one shows up, does any one really care?

The distributors of artistic works also must be incentivized by the intellectual property laws to continuing their distributing. And by "distributors" we mean record companies -- large and small, corporate and independent. And by "incentivized," we mean "earn a profit." (The old response at this point would be to wave one's hands and testify to the power of the "internet" to distribute music, but I trust we all see why it doesn't apply to the current debate on P2P networks.)

Of course, this is only part of the response to Yglesias's piece. A good bit of the rest involves questions of whether the creators of music -- the artistes -- also deserve to make a little more green. Yglesias breezes that "'Rock star' isn't exactly a really crappy profession that people would be unwilling to take on if you couldn't get rich doing it." Sure, "getting rich" probably ain't the goal of most full-time rock star "professionals." More like "surviving."

UPDATE: So we're clear: Yglesias's discussion of whether the net amount of available music has increased is fundamentally misplaced. Copyright does not make music "available"; it allows the producers of music (and other creative works) to earn a living off their creativity. In other words, it lets them make money.

So, it's probably true the availability of music has increased.* Every little local band is now readily available; what used to require pouring over little rags and sending SASEs to far off places now can be done with a Google search. But that's irrelevant if those bands (and their distributors) are not also making money off their music.

*I don't think it's right to say the number of producers have increased -- at least, Yglesias hasn't presented evidence to support such a claim.

March 30, 2005

Put it in with the law of unintended consequences, and shove it back in the closet with the rest of the cliches. In my extended family, the most significant fallout from the Schiavo case is a sudden rise in the number of requests that I (not) involve myself in the deaths of loved ones.

This is not meant to be callous towards Ms. Schiavo, whose experiences have been an unmitigated tragedy. Rather, this is a bit of cinema verite -- a glipse into the unguarded way that we talk about the end of life. Some of the respondents are Democrats of the FDR school. Some were Republicans before being Republican was cool. Some are very religious; others, not so much. And one comment actually predates the Schiavo affair -- yes, I know, it's hard to believe that people could be thinking about such things without the involvement of the U.S. Congress.

March 29, 2005

Guess what? We are slowly creeping up on half a million visitors. We should be there within the hour, if trends hold. That's a scary thought.

I followed a few of the trackbacks to my Terri Schiavo post, and there seemed to be a bit of confusion as to my gender. (By confusion I mean that every one I checked who I don't already know, e.g. from their comments here, and who used a pronoun to describe me, thought I was a guy. One person segued directly from a post on "his" (my) arguments to the apparently undying question: Where are all the women bloggers?) So for the benefit of those who don't know, I thought I'd provide a tiny, subtle hint as to my gender, from Tild:

One non-scary thing: there's a relatively new blog by someone called 'The Cunning Realist' that's worth checking out. He or she is conservative in what strikes me as a sort of von-like way, is very sharp, and very independent-minded.

"The eigenspace of an eigenvalue l is the collection of all vectors u that are mapped to lu under the action of a fixed matrix. It is important to note that u choices exclude the zero vector because the zero vector always is mapped to itself under this type of transformation. On our own, we are like the zero vector because no matter what we try, we cannot move away from out sinful status. However, through the grace of Christ, we are transformed from being a zero vector to the eigenspace of the redeemed (the likeness of Christ)."

"A functions is a rule which assigns to each object in a domain set exactly one object in a codomain set. So, suppose that the domain set is the collection of behaviors that people do and the codomain consists of two values: perfect or imperfect. On our own, every behavior that we do is mapped to the "imperfect" output value. But, the Jesus function takes our behavior and filters it through his sacrifice so that God takes the output of the behavior of Christians as "perfect" in terms of our final judgment. Praise God!"

"An inverse mapping of any function reverses the direction of the assignment of the function. In the case that the original function is one-to-one, the inverse mapping will also be a function with the domain and codomain interchanged.

Through the sin of Adam, all people are condemned for eternity. We cannot escape our inherited imperfection. Let's define the "Adam life function" to act on people. This function has output death for all inputs. However, Christ inverts the total condemnation of people through his death and resurrection. This acts as a sort of inverse to the "Adam life function;" the "Christ death function" acts on all people and brings life to those who believe. This is not truly an inverse function--it is more of a negation--the negation of Adam (man) is Christ and the negation of life is death. It is ironic that to give eternal life to people whose lives are undeserving, Christ had to die."

And this sentence, from the marvelously titled "Secant Lines and Sanctification": "There is one distinction between the concepts of sanctification and secant line limits, however." -- (Only one?)

Now: I have no interest in making fun of Christianity per se. I spent nine rather important years as a very serious Christian, and retain a lot of respect for Christianity. Nor do I have any interest in making fun of the idea of using mathematics to illustrate religion, an idea with a long and distinguished history. But this particular attempt to mix the two invites ridicule: it's only slightly less idiotic than Alan Sokal's immortal footnote:

"Just as liberal feminists are frequently content with a minimal agenda of legal and social equality for women and "pro-choice", so liberal (and even some socialist) mathematicians are often content to work within the hegemonic Zermelo-Fraenkel framework (which, reflecting its nineteenth-century liberal origins, already incorporates the axiom of equality) supplemented only by the axiom of choice. But this framework is grossly insufficient for a liberatory mathematics, as was proven long ago by Cohen (1966)."

-- and that was a joke. Three-Toed Sloth writes to the author: "It seems to me that if you were serious about the Bible being the inspired word of the God to whom you will answer at the Last Judgment, you would not treat it in this profoundly shoddy, slapdash way." I agree completely.

While I'm on the subject of religion, here's a post from Slacktivist, which I reproduce in its entirety:

"You know you've been spending too much time in the blogosphere when your instinctive response to the Easter liturgy is to say:

Let me start with an explanation of why I stand where I do on this issue: Doctors and pharmacists in the US are given a license to practice their profession by the state. They do not have the right to practice without a state-issued license (in other words, their church cannot issue them a license). Our constitutionally mandated separation of church and state therefore extends to that license IMO. Few people would hesitate to call it wholly unacceptable discrimination if a doctor or pharmacist's beliefs led them to refuse to treat a person because of their religion or race or gender, no matter how sincerely they felt their religion insisted that treating such people was repugnant. Some religions prohibit men from touching a woman when she's menstruating, for example. Would anyone sane consider a licensed doctor in the US within his rights to refuse emergency treatment to a woman just because she was having her period?

And yet, there's a growing trend among pharmacists who oppose abortion to turn away patients seeking birth control or morning-after medicine. Here's one anecdote illustrating how insane this is getting (from yesterday's Washington Post):

"There are pharmacists who will only give birth control pills to a woman if she's married. There are pharmacists who mistakenly believe contraception is a form of abortion and refuse to prescribe it to anyone," said Adam Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York, which tracks reproductive issues. "There are even cases of pharmacists holding prescriptions hostage, where they won't even transfer it to another pharmacy when time is of the essence."

That is what happened to Kathleen Pulz and her husband, who panicked when the condom they were using broke. Their fear really spiked when the Walgreens pharmacy down the street from their home in Milwaukee refused to fill an emergency prescription for the morning-after pill.

"I couldn't believe it," said Pulz, 44, who with her husband had long ago decided they could not afford a fifth child. "How can they make that decision for us? I was outraged. At the same time, I was sad that we had to do this. But I was scared. I didn't know what we were going to do."

I haven't commented on the Schiavo case earlier because it has already received too much attention. The case cuts across some of the more traditional American left-right faultlines, yet remains very divisive. I strongly believe in supporting a person's right to choose to terminate or refuse medical treatment. I also believe that when matters of life and death are on the line we should choose to support life when in doubt. Republican legislators have been grandstanding in all the wrong ways about this case. This case is ultimately about one woman dying who was very unlikely to ever return to a more healthy state. But if you want to do something about the situation that brought us to the ugly state of allowing a patient to starve to death, grandstanding for Mrs. Schiavo isn't what is needed. What is needed is some concrete proposals. If I had the power to, I would introduce bills in each of the states (I don't think this is a federal matter) suggesting the following:

A) It should be very easy to make your legitimate wishes known. Make do not resuscitate/medical intention orders available in some easy fashion. Make them available with driver's lisence applications? Something that almost every citizen comes in contact with.

B) If you wishes are not in a writing, uncontroverted evidence from at least two witnesses is sufficient.

C) If there is conflicting evidence and there is no writing, it must be resolved to a very high threshold of proof. I'm loathe to invoke the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard, but I've rarely been happy with how loose the 'clear and convincing' standard can get. This is akin to death penalty cases in that we are should be willing to accept some false negatives so as to avoid very many false postives.

I think there is a distinction between assisted breathing and assisted eating. I'm not sure I can pin it down right now, but I think it has something to do with how quickly you die without breathing and how close to death you normally have to be before your body will stop breathing. I'm not sure how the distinction would play out in law, but I would like to see it reflected somehow.

March 28, 2005

Instapundit sneers that it represents "more crushing of dissent," but that's just more of his trademark glib oversimplification. LGFers treat it as just another opportunity to mock the tolerance of those on the left and feel superior. Personally, I think it's a heartless overreaction to a careless overreaction, and it highlights one of the more complicated issues in the struggle for gay rights. It's a story of an objection to an outing campaign that's had rather severe consequences for someone who was not even closeted.

GayPatriot is a blog with a writer named "GayPatriot" and co-writer named "GayPatriot West." They're conservatives. I've skimmed this blog a few times, but honestly never got into it. I did appreciate that it represented the gay conservative point of view (and no, unlike other folks, I don't consider that an oxymoron), but I like my conservative thought served well-considered and, well, GayPatriot seemed a bit rabid to me (it's all relative, I know).